Tag Archives: cancer

Remote patient monitoring cuts hospital admissions, ER visits, report finds

Doctor conferring with patient and on-screen specialist for article, Remote patient monitoring cuts hospital admissions, ER visits, report findsDive Brief:

  • One-fourth of healthcare organizations say remote patient monitoring reduces emergency room visits and hospital readmissions, while 38% say the technology results in fewer inpatient admissions, according to a new KLAS Research report.
  • The industry-backed American Telemedicine Association and the research group looked at how RPM is impacting providers and payers, talking with 25 organizations that used RPM products from seven different vendors.
  • The key use cases for remote patient monitoring were heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, though interest in using RPM for other conditions like diabetes and hypertension is starting to pick up. RPM is also seeing some limited use in mental health, surgical recovery, dementia and cancer.

Dive Insight:

Remote patient monitoring is a growing sector in the digital health space, with an aging population and the opportunity to better manage chronic conditions. There is a potential windfall for companies with the right idea and clinical evidence to back it up, and investors are lining up to get a piece of the action. Disease monitoring was among the top-funded value propositions in last quarter, with $781 million across 38 deals, according to Rock Health.

RPM also holds potential to improve health outcomes. In a 2017 study, breast reconstruction patients with access to a mobile app that allowed them to submit photos and report information to their doctors had fewer post-surgery follow-up appointments than patients without the app. Patients using the app also rated their follow-up care higher on convenience.

Payers are recognizing its benefits and incentivizing its use, too. In its physician fee schedule final rule  for 2018, CMS unbundled a code for RPM, allowing physicians to seek reimbursement for collecting and interpreting health data generated remotely by patients, digitally stored and sent to providers, with a minimum of 30 minutes.

The move marked a “huge win” for RPM and a “big step forward for Medicare’s ability to deal with chronic conditions,” Gary Capistrant, the ATA’s chief policy officer, told Healthcare Dive earlier this year. He noted that several years ago when Medicare covered a code for chronic care but didn’t cover remote monitoring, the result was a tepid uptake.

Use of RPM is growing across all use cases, but is particularly robust for hypertension, mental health and cancer, where there is a lot of room for growth, according to KLAS.

According to the report:

  • 13% of organizations report RPM improves medication compliance;
  • 8% say it lowered A1c levels, an indication of how the body is maintaining blood glucose levels;
  • 13% say it improved patient health;
  • 25% report greater patient satisfaction; and
  • 17% cite quantified cost reductions.

    [SEE FULL STORY HERE]

Do Online Medical Results Do More Harm Than Good?

Sandra G. Boodman
March 29, 2018

As she herded her two young sons into bed one evening late last Google logo with stethoscope for article, Do Online Medical Results Do More Harm Than Good?December, Laura Devitt flipped through her phone to check on the routine blood tests that had been performed as part of her annual physical. She logged onto the patient portal link on her electronic medical record, scanned the results and felt her stomach clench with fear.

Devitt’s white blood cell count and several other tests were flagged as abnormal. Beyond the raw numbers, there was no explanation.

“I got really tense and concerned,” said Devitt, 39, a manager of data analysis who lives in New Orleans. She immediately began searching online and discovered that possible causes ranged from a trivial infection to cancer.

“I was able to calm myself down,” said Devitt, who waited anxiously for her doctor to call. Two days later, after hearing nothing, she called the office. Her doctor telephoned the next day. She reassured Devitt that the probable cause was her 5-year-old’s recent case of pinkeye and advised her to get tested again. She did, and the results were normal.

“I think getting [test results] online is great,” said Devitt, who says she wishes she had been spared days of needless worry waiting for her doctor’s explanation. “But if it’s concerning, there should be some sort of note from a doctor.”

Devitt’s experience illustrates both the promise and the perils of a largely unexamined transformation in the way growing numbers of Americans receive sensitive — sometimes life-changing — medical information. A decade ago, most patients were informed over the phone or in person by the doctor who had ordered testing and could explain the results.

But in the past few years, hospitals and medical practices have urged patients to sign up for portals, which allow them rapid, round-the-clock access to their records. Lab tests (with few exceptions) are now released directly to patients. Studies estimate that between 15 and 30 percent of patients use portals.Bottom of Form.

[READ FULL STORY HERE]

Is PSA Now “OK”?

What the task force really said about the evidence on prostate cancer screening

by Kathlyn Stone  |  An associate editor with HealthNewsReview.org. You can find her tweets at @KatKStone

illustration of PSA test, to screen or not to screenReading the headlines on the US Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) update to its prostate cancer screening guidelines, you might come away with the idea that the task force has completely reversed its 2012 recommendation against broad-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

But that would be the wrong impression.

What the revised guideline does is make a slight change. It changes the recommendation for routine prostate cancer screening from a “D” (which discourages the service since “There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.”) to a “C (which means that physicians should “Offer or provide this service for selected patients depending on individual circumstances,” and that “There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.”)

The main point is that men who are candidates for testing (ages 55 to 69) should discuss the benefits and harms of the test with their doctors and make a personal decision about whether to take it.

Some news outlets engaged in grade inflation

HealthNewsReview.org contributor Saurabh Jha, MBBS suggested, somewhat cheekily, that some urologists might want to temper their jubilation over this modest adjustment:

 

The prize for most misleading framing of this news comes from the Washington Post whose headline proclaimed: “The federal panel that opposed prostate cancer screening just changed its mind.”

[READ FULL STORY HERE]